Do the Lib-Dems need media tuition?

Ed Miliband recently told Labour MPs that being in opposition is crap. After 60 years out of office, many Liberal Democrats would no doubt sympathise with that sentiment, but it has to be said, that being a Liberal Democrat has lately been a bit crap too.

On the whole, I have been fairly pleased with the Coalition, which has delivered a number of policies I have wanted to see for some time: from a less authoritarian state, taking low paid workers out of tax, reform of political institutions, changes to the benefit system, prison reform, to the pupil premium. For the party which finished third in the General Election, this is a good return.

Tuition fees however, is the hot topic which looks likely to cause the Lib-Dems serious and long term political damage. This is especially galling, because the policy negotiated has some really positive aspects. If the Coalition had bothered to ‘go on the offensive’ rather than talking to themselves, then the spin from Labour and the NUS could have been exposed.

Aaron Porter: President of the NUS, member of the Labour Party, and if he follows the path of many of his predecessors, recipient of a safe Labour seat sometime in the not too distant future, has been eager to play down any progressive elements of the policy Instead he chooses to express it in as much inflammatory language as he can muster. The NUS have proposed a graduate tax, (as have I), but they have not explained to students that they would pay as much, if not more, under such a system. In essence, both systems are virtually identical.

The problem for the Lib-Dems is not that they are proposing this policy, but that they were naive enough to sign those NUS pledges. The leadership desperately tried to discard the albatross of scrapping tuition fees, on the grounds that it was impossible to implement in the real world of government. But the Lib-Dems are democratic, and activists insisted they kept this policy – it was popular on the door steps and they were realistically unlikely to get into government. The leadership made the same assessment and the MPs signed the NUS pledges. The fact is that the Lib-Dems did get into government and now have been ‘mugged’ by the realities of power.

Let’s be clear. If Labour had won the election, they would be implementing this exact same policy. They promised there would be no tuition fees in 1997, won the election and brought in tuition fees. They promised they would not bring in top-up fees in 2001, won the election and gave us top-up fees. They created the Browne Report, to push the decision to raise fees until after the election, and a graduate tax was not even part of its remit. Under Labour, the Browne Report’s only possible recommendation could have been to raise fees. Labour’s policy now, is rank and naked opportunism – they have twice made election promises about higher education funding, and then broke them whilst in majority governments. They now are pillorying the Lib-Dems for not keeping to their manifesto commitment, as the party which finished third in the General Election.

How Clegg must regret those pledges. It feeds the strong narrative in the leftish media of ‘Tory cuts and spineless Liberal lickspittles’, or simply the ‘Con-dems’. The Tories are indifferent about all this, they are supported by the vast majority of the media, but for the Lib-Dems this is damaging. Much of this could have been avoided by better leadership; talking to the voters rather than concentrating on Coalition management and the party taking better control of its media image. The Lib-Dems are still operating as a second opposition, not as a Coalition partner in government and if this does not change soon, the Labour spin machine will crush them.

Cuts: This is just the begining

So we have now had the Comprehensive Spending Review. Gideon has swung his axe - with half a million public service workers set to lose their jobs and perhaps another half a million jobs at risk in the private sector. There has been an interesting game going on in the media, trying to pin down just who exactly is responsible for the position the UK now finds itself in.

The Coalition tells us it was all Labour's fault; they were profligate with public money during a boom. Labour on the other hand, say that the Tories are cutting for ideological reasons; they want a smaller state and are making the cuts for this reason alone. The Trade Unions say that this mess was caused by the banks; the banks created this crisis and it is public service workers who are paying the price.

For the state to do something it needs money and therefore must raise taxes. Historically, governments have been able to gather slightly less than 40% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Conservative, as well as Labour governments have tried to increase this tax yield from time to time without success. They ultimately failed due to tax revenues reducing during recessions. Government spending over this period has been generally slightly higher than 40 % of GDP, and during Gordon Brown’s tenure, this rose to 48% of GDP. Some of this rise is directly due to the recession and some the ‘stimulus package’, introduced as an emergency measure to stop this recession spiralling into a depression. If we ignore this spending, there is still a 6% difference between what the government raises and what it spends, known as the ‘structural deficit’. This does not include PFIs or the bank bailouts, which are conveniently not on the government’s books.

There is a valid argument that Labour needed to run this structural deficit to repair the public services and infrastructure following 18 years of Thatcherite neglect. How well Labour spent its money is a contentious issue. Sir Philip Green’s review of government spending makes for interesting reading, and his conclusion that there was extravagant waste is supported by a decade of Private Eye articles.

There is a much deeper problem facing public services and government spending in the UK, which politicians have occasionally mentioned over the last 20 years, but have failed to properly address. We have an ageing population. The generation of ‘Baby Boomers’ are now approaching retirement and collecting their state pensions. As they leave work taxes will fall and government spending will rise. If we are to keep our pensioners out of poverty, then we will have to pay an ever larger slice of tax revenue on the state pension. This will mean that governments will have to do much less in other areas or take a lot more in taxes from a smaller working population.

What we have come to expect as the Welfare State has been facing this impasse from almost its creation, yet repeated governments have not faced the issue. I was taught about greying populations in a GCSE geography lesson in 1993, with all its obvious economic implications. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of democracy that politicians will always follow the path of least resistance. You don’t get many votes telling people the truth, asking for more money or reducing benefits. The politicians and the voters have instead thought only in the short term, preferring tax cuts and empty rhetoric about world class public services full of consumer choice.

The banking crisis was the trigger, but it is not as the unions are arguing, the cause of this mess. Blame lies with successive governments who have failed to reasonably prepare for an easily predicted problem. They were aided and abetted by a generation who have taken from the Welfare State, without adequately paying towards its sustainability. Their children and their grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes for inferior public services.

This spending review is merely the tip of the iceberg. The state will be reduced and the UK population is going to have a bleak few decades to endure. Many Tories will take pleasure in shrinking the size of the state, but where are the other options? They will probably go too far, too quickly, and we will need to be vigilant in protecting the most vulnerable in society and the most cherished of our public services. It is certainly unlikely to be fair and we are definitely not all in this together – however there seems to be few viable alternatives available.

Forget the cuts: tuition fees will be the first test of the Coalition’s resolve

Yesterday the Lib-Dem membership received an e-mail from Vince Cable ruling out “a pure graduate tax”, adding that “while it is superficially attractive, an additional tax on graduates fails both the tests of fairness and deficit reduction”.

What this actually amounts to, is that despite the best efforts of Vince and David Willetts, the Treasury would not wear a graduate tax. It was always going to be tough to get a ‘tax’ past the Conservatives, especially one which would disproportionately affect upper middle-class families. It would have also been difficult, as there would be an interim period between tuition fees being phased out and graduate tax funding paying into the system.

Vince cited three problems of a graduate tax, which he maintains would make it unviable. Some graduates would end up paying more than the cost of their education; UK taxes would not be able to be collected from foreign students; and a graduate tax would not help reduce the deficit over the next five years.

The first two reasons do not seem particularly insurmountable. I suspect that it would only be a minority of graduates on obscene salaries who would pay “many times more than the cost of their course”. Foreign students could pay the cost of their studies, in full, upfront. However it is the last problem which has decided government policy, a graduate tax would indubitably add to government spending over this parliament - but it would be progressive in the longer term.

Quite how this fits with Nick Clegg’s speech on the 18th of August, where he said: “governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next”, is anyone’s guess.

This announcement will be of serious concern for the 57 Lib-Dem MPs, 54 of whom including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, signed the NUS pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. If a graduate tax is dismissed, then tuition fees will undoubtedly have to rise, with some reports of students being charged £10,000 a year. Each of those MPs will have to decide whether abstaining will honour that pledge, or whether they will have to vote against the government.

This is a major headache for the Lib-Dem leadership, and if it is not handled well, Nick and Vince may find their party in open revolt. The abolition of tuition fees is a policy which has support from virtually all activists and by signing the NUS pledge, the MPs have no space for manoeuvre. They will either be disloyal rebels or proven hypocrites. Either way, this will provide a large stick for their opponents to beat them with.

The hypocrisy of the phone hacks

The last week’s news has been dominated by moral outrage. From the re-emergence of the News of the World phone hacking scandal to Pakistan’s cricket players allegedly taking bribes in a scheme to rig spot betting at the bookmakers - uncovered, ironically enough, by the News of the World.

The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the New York Times, which claims to have sources who tell them that Andy Coulson (editor of the News of the World at the time and now the Prime Ministers ‘spin doctor’) was not only aware of the practice, but was actively involved in it. It has always struck me as eminently believable that the editor of the paper was unaware of the ‘dark arts’ employed by his reporters on some of their biggest stories. He has adopted a position of outright denial and provided that he is telling the truth, all is well – if he is shown to be lying on the other hand, then he is finished.

All of which is fascinating, not to mention a headache for David Cameron. If Coulson should start sinking in this scandal, he should not expect a lifeline from the Prime Minister. I noted that 10 Downing Street has referred to him latterly as a ‘media advisor’ rather than his grander title of ‘Head of Communications’ which may be a subtle distancing, just to play it safe.

The fact that this story petered out initially is at first a little puzzling. You would think that the rest of the press would unite to strike a blow at the Murdoch Empire and pursue this story relentlessly. The Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s Guardian as ‘an elephant in the room’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.

This story now represents a battle between the remnants of independent and left leaning quality news outlets, with Murdoch and his perceived influence with the seats of power. They have perhaps decided to follow Benjamin Franklin’s advice at the signing of the Declaration of Independence - that it is preferable to ‘hang together’ rather than ‘most assuredly hanging separately’. They have found a line of weakness that strikes through to both the heart of Murdoch’s media operations and the Conservative Prime Minister whom he has supported and they are determined to draw some blood.

There is however a broader lesson to be drawn from this episode, neatly summed in the old proverb that ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. Everyone was quick to condemn Pakistan’s cricketers, but was what they did really any worse than the office worker who helps them self to the stationary cupboard's contents or the plumber who does ‘cash in hand’ jobs at the weekend, other than scale?  Was what they did worse than hacking into peoples phones, breaching their human right to privacy in order to sell gossip and tittle-tattle?

The Labour leadership candidates have been quick to jump on to this story, but as usual, for the wrong reasons. As long as politicians seek to score cheap points against their opponents in sleaze stories, they should expect their careers ruined when inevitably they fall foul themselves in the future. They would be advised to remember their party’s relentless pursuit of ‘Tory sleaze’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.

The phone hacking scandal isn’t a political points scoring opportunity – it is about ending a culture where certain journalists believe (or are encouraged to believe) that any means justify the end. That Coulson is now part of ‘Team Cameron’ should be a marginal aspect in this story. It is of more interest that the same organisation which illegally breaches people’s privacy to fish for scoops feels it is perfectly justified in entrapping dumb ‘celebrities’ in its sting operations.  Stings have their place in journalism; but the accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the News of the World when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.

In favour of a graduate tax

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and Universities Minister, David Willetts, look to have pre-empted the Browne report on the future of university funding by declaring their preference for a graduate tax - or ‘contribution’ as they would prefer it to be termed. The disagreement over how higher education is to be funded and where the burden of that cost should fall has been raging for two decades now. Perhaps, if wisely implemented, a graduate contribution could at last settle this issue and provide a fairer method of paying for higher education.


There are three models of higher education funding. The comprehensive system, wholly subsidised by the treasury - as it was in the heady days prior to tuition fees - where all taxpayers contribute. The current tuition fee system; where a student pays an ‘upfront fee’ towards part of the cost of their education. And the graduate tax system where a student pays either part of, or the total cost of their education, over their working life through a change to their personal income tax allowance.

“Why should the bin man pay for the doctor’s education?” was the argument against universally funded higher education, albeit if somewhat paraphrased. I suspect that if the bin man’s life was saved by that doctor, he’d think the money was well spent. However it does also seem a reasonable argument that a doctor, earning a vast salary, should pay back the cost of their education. The increasing number of students - four hundred thousand in the early 1960s rising to 2 million by 2000 - has seen the cost of higher education to the state soar. In this ‘age of austerity’ it seems unlikely that we will be returning to a comprehensive system anytime soon – as appealing as that may be to the student body.

New-labour seemed reluctant to break this universal model, but recognised the cost to the Treasury was untenable. The tuition fee could perhaps be an example of Tony Blair’s “third way”, which implied a compromise between left and right wing political ideologies. The problem with tuition fees is that a teacher or librarian has to pay the same amount towards their education as a doctor or stock broker, even though the financial rewards are hugely disproportionate.

By presenting tuition fees as a loan, rather than as a short term higher tax rate, students from poorer backgrounds are deterred from university due to debt aversion. To the disproportionately large number of public school students in British universities, the tuition fee must seem laughably small when compared to their school fees and constitutes a subsidy to the wealthiest section of British society, therefore acting as a barrier to social mobility.

The merit of the graduate tax is that it does not seem like a debt. In reality of course, it is identical to tuition fees. Both are paid automatically from your wages when you are earning above a certain level. The majority of students are financially better off under tuition fees, but this does not equate to a fair system and does not protect higher education in the long run.

Our higher education establishments require more money to survive and it seems fair that those students who gain the largest financial reward from their studies should pay the most back. Those vocations which require highly trained staff but will never be able to pay wages that reward that educational investment – librarians being an apt example – could be protected. A graduate tax could also enable a level of social engineering by rewarding ‘worthy’ careers – such as teaching or nursing (currently totally subsidised) – by applying a lower rate until their earnings pass a suitable salary mark. The previous government’s suggestion that degrees should be tailored to the market ignored this argument entirely. It seems to me that education should be more than just supplying business with fresh meat as it were. They also have a role to protect Britain’s cultural and intellectual traditions, not just creating legions of lawyers and brokers.

The graduate tax is not without its critics. It has been suggested that it would lead to a ‘brain drain’ as British students will work abroad once qualified to avoid repayment; most students will end up paying significantly more towards their education; and universities will lose direct control of the finances that tuition fees currently deliver to them. The brain drain argument is weak. Britain is an importer of graduates and has been happy to strip the developing world of skilled workers for 50 years. It seems unlikely that the highly paid graduate will abandon the UK on the basis of several thousand pounds repaid over a lifetime of earnings. As already argued, it seems fair that the more a graduate is rewarded on the basis of their qualifications, the more they should pay back to safeguard the future of higher education. The last criticism is perhaps the strongest. A graduate tax can only work if the money raised is ring fenced and ploughed back into universities. As with all taxes, there is always the risk that sticky Treasury fingers will divert funds from their original purpose.

The graduate tax should be a deal between graduates, higher education providers and government. Graduates need to recognise that qualifications in the majority of cases will lead to higher wages over their lifetime, but also offer more than just financial reward. Higher education has the potential to open and develop minds as well as providing the potential to add to our intellectual heritage and contribute to our societal well being. Universities will be financially secure, but must prepare students suitably for the workplace. Government must protect funding and apply a graduate tax in a fair manner which recognises worthy and specialised vocations and see that it is applied in a redistributive way.

Should the graduate tax – sorry, contribution – be applied in the way I have suggested, then I would welcome it. It is certainly better than ever increasing tuition and proposed top-up fees.  Most importantly, it will change the perception of higher education as a financial gamble and could then perhaps encourage greater social mobility in this country.

A Tale of Two Wars

David Cameron and Barack Obama met last week in Washington for their first bilateral talks. At the top of their agenda was how to extricate themselves from the wars they have inherited. With the announcement of a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2015, it would seem that neither administration is willing to stay any longer than expediency allows. The terrible cost in blood and treasure has turned public opinion firmly against the war, and both will be eager that they do not pay a political price. It is likely that Iran and North Korea also formed part of their discussions, but both men would do well to learn the lessons that their predecessors provided and should be wary of any future interventionist adventures.

In 1989 the world changed. The Berlin Wall was torn down, bloodless revolutions swept Central and Eastern Europe and by 1991 Boris Yeltsin rode on a tank into Red Square. The Cold War dissolved with the preconceptions of how global politics worked. The problem with this post-cold war idyll was that it took from our governments their raison-d’être, as leaders of the ‘free’. Into this vacuum entered Tony Blair, whose path to interventionism it would seem was initially an organic one. British troops were sent to Sierra Leone to free UK hostages from the rebel forces, but once on the ground they quickly realised they could end the civil war with ease, and did so, apparently without explicit government consent. Buoyed by this success, Blair turned his attention to Kosovo and led Bill Clinton’s America reluctantly to the conflict. It is hard to criticise either of these interventions, and in so far as any wars can be called good, these were.

After Kosovo, Mr Blair became a firm believer in interventionism as a force for good and when George W Bush’s hawkish Republican administration took office in 2001, he found a leader who shared this world view. The Republicans dreamt of creating a global democratic free-market utopia and they believed that US military power should be deployed to impose it, especially in the troublesome Middle East. The Muslim hardliners who preached of ‘The Great Satan’ - with its imperialist pretensions in the Arab world - felt vindicated and Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers. The philosopher John Grey, in Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern suggests that the ideologies of both the Western interventionists and Al Qaeda were born of contradictions and false premises - nonetheless they led us to war.

In his polemic three part documentary, The Power of Nightmares, Adam Curtis argues that the ‘war on terror' lies largely in the imagination of our elites as a post cold war narrative, and the resultant actions of British and American foreign policy have made the world less safe than it was before. He believes that Western governments were emasculated by the ending of the cold war, but by deluding themselves of a global terrorist nightmare and saving us from it - they could become powerful once more. The real threat to Britain lies in the disenfranchisement of youth from minority ethnic Europe, the oppression of Palestine, the manipulation of Pakistan, the nation building in Afghanistan and that we have ended up fighting a morally dubious conflict as part of a deeply misguided post colonial doctrine. These actions have created a discontented Islamic world, and a minority have been drawn to violence - but to characterise this as a replacement threat equal to the Soviet Union simply does not stand scrutiny.

David Cameron has already betrayed a poor grasp of history, when he described Britain as “America’s junior partner in 1940”; one might have thought an expensive Eton education would have taught him that Britain stood alone in that year - America would not join the conflict until December 1941. It is however a more recent history that Obama and Cameron must learn from if the damage to America and Britain’s reputations in the international community are to be repaired. When Nick Clegg stood at the dispatch box on Wednesday and denounced “the illegal invasion of Iraq” as “Labour’s most disastrous decision”, he may or may not have been materially correct, but he accurately articulated the deeply held view of a great many across the globe. It is a timely reminder that we must face up to what has been done ‘in our names’ to make sure that it can never happen again - and that the rule of law extends not just to citizens but to our leaders as well.

It would be naive to think endless peace is credible, but I believe that it is fundamental that Britain should only ever fight ‘the good fight’ in the future.

Flaming June

Well, it’s been over a month since I last wrote a blog; for you see I’ve been busy writing essays, making a radio feature and working extra nights at the petrol station (the things I will do to put bread on the table!). It has certainly been an interesting month and I’ve rued not having the time to pontificate on a number of events.

My last offering correctly predicted The Supreme Leader’s end and the absurdly titled ‘Rainbow Coalition’ which seemed to exist only in the minds of left leaning daydreamers; however I didn’t guess it would be the Scottish Old Left Dinosaurs who would snuff out such an outcome. It seemed that opposition was preferable to having to compromise with their despised SNP counterparts. It was a remarkable sight, to behold Mandleson and Campbell running like demented schoolboys to the Sky/BBC news circus on College Green, one day fawning over the Lib Dems and then within 24 hours castigating them. It was enlightening to see how our country had been run for the last decade, only for once being conducted in the glare of the TV cameras. This has however provided us with the ‘spectacle’ of a Labour ‘leadership’ contest, which seems to highlight to the uninitiated an amazing lack of talent in the ranks of the party; I have tried to imagine any of the contenders in the role and can only see disaster ahead for those of a Labour bent. We have seen Diane Abbott given her place in the contest, an act which smacked of unbelievably patronising tokenism from the other contenders and it would serve them right if she won. To be fair to Ms Abbott, she at least has a little integrity, which is notably lacking in the others, even though she is woefully unqualified for the role which she seeks. The belief of many Labour activists that when the coalition becomes unpopular, they will waltz back into government regardless of policy or leader, which seems to be somewhat optimistic in my humble opinion. However its endless reassertion in the Guardian seems to provide them succour, so I will wish them the best of British luck with that strategy.

We have also seen BP unleash the greatest environmental disaster on the world ever. Well, the largest to affect a Western country anyway. Who gives a toss that there has been a strikingly similar event going on, unreported for years, in the Niger Delta. Rule one of news – a hundred dead Africans is no news; ninety-nine dead Africans and one dead Anglo-Saxon and it leads the ten o’clock news. Still, this has given the increasingly suspect Obama the opportunity to rant and rave with high hyperbole about this being a new 9/11, and to exercise his barely concealed Anglophobia. Never mind that the rig was operating under licence for BP by an American company; never mind that it was Halliburton (of course it was!) that was responsible for the failed blow out preventer; never mind the criminally lapse US regulatory body, which it would seem didn’t regulate anything other than signing off contracts; never mind the fact that the US is the largest polluter on the globe by a very large margin and have done their utmost to block any attempts to modify their excesses, and that their insatiable craving for oil has caused untold misery across the globe for the last hundred years. Why take an uncomfortable look at yourself, when you can whip up xenophobic sentiment against ‘British Petroleum’ to mask your own impotence in the situation and the subsequent drop in the approval ratings. We’ll ignore the fact that BP is 40% US owned and Britain has been America’s staunchest, loyalist and some would say slavish ally for a century, even when that has meant British leaders damaging themselves to defend America’s interests. We’ll ignore all that, because you’ve got those midterms coming up, oh brave and principled leader of the free.


We also had a mad man go on a killing spree in Cumbria. Whilst this is a thankfully rare event in the UK, it didn’t stop the media going into overdrive, with all its phoney soul searching and seeking answers to unanswerable questions. BBC news24 and Sky take the prize though, for their usual brand of insensitive reporting. Did they really still need to be camped on the street 48 hours later, interviewing people with no connection to the events? Is it only me that finds the mawkish and intrusive way that rolling news treats these events so distasteful? These were real people whose lives were cut short in a brutal way by a man who clearly had severe problems. It wasn’t an episode of Midsummer Murders or CSI. It should be possible to report the news in restrained and respectful manner; I suspect there is just too much emphasis on ratings and too much technology available to these rolling news shits. I half expected a reconstruction of events by day two to star Robert Carlisle as the gunman being stalked by PC Dick van Dyke with Cracker providing psychoanalysis back up, leading to a final confrontation at the top of Scarfell Pike.


Now to the much maligned coalition. I am growing somewhat weary of people telling me that the Lib Dems are somehow sell-outs, I have been told we should have, for some reason yet to adequately be explained to me, put the national interest behind some narrow ideological standpoint, which isn’t what we stand for anyway. This probably stems from the woeful and lazy media coverage we have received for the last two decades, where we have unfairly been labelled as Labour-lite. We are now the little-Tories, which of course is equally inane and un-descriptive of our politics. We are a liberal party. That we have areas that overlap with Labour and at the same time with the Conservatives shouldn’t be that hard to grasp, unless you have a very low intellect. We believe in protection for those who have fallen through the gaps of society, we agree with the welfare state (to a degree) and it was the Liberal Party of Asquith, Lloyd-George and Churchill who instigated the state pension, unemployment payments and National Insurance. It was Beverage, a Liberal, who drew up the welfare plans adopted by Labour after the war, and which we have supported ever since. We also deplore bureaucracy, government waste and seek value for money; we believe that the free market is the best way to deliver economic freedom; however that it requires regulation to reduce inequality and to produce stability. Above all else, we believe in personal freedoms in all its forms, the state should be limited in its interference in personal affairs; only to prevent individuals from impeding on another’s freedoms.


As a Liberal, the idea that you can have welfare provision which offers value for money and reduced bureaucracy and that you can have a government which doesn’t spy, pry or dominate individuals, whilst seeking to restrain the free market to reduce the inequality gap doesn’t seem inalienable positions. We have much in common with the liberal wing of Labour and the One Nation Conservatives – at the same time! It would have been just as difficult to form a coalition with Labour, as we Liberals despise the authoritarian Old Left Labourites as much as we despise the ‘unreformed right’ of the Tories. I believe Clegg made the best of the options available to him. We have an amazingly liberal set of policies for the coalition – and for the record, coalition doesn’t mean the Lib Dems have ‘joined’ the Conservatives, it is an agreement between the two parties forming a joint government of Lib Dems AND Conservatives – but the fact remains the country is bust and some unpopular choices will have to be made.


What this will mean for the Lib Dems in the future is difficult to guess, however I strongly believe that any other choice made by Clegg would have led to an even worse outcome. If we lose votes, so be it. If we lose the more demented of our activists, to Labour or the Greens, good riddance. Finally, I would like to counter a repeating charge that the Lib Dems have betrayed Labour supporters, who voted Lib Dem to ‘keep the Tories out.’ As a party, we could not have been any clearer. Repeatedly in the last week of the campaign, Nick Clegg urged voters to not vote tactically: “vote with your heart, for what you believe in” he said maybe a little too frequently. It was Peter Hain, Alistair Campbell, the Mirror and the Independent who urged you to vote tactically – not us.

Uncertain times

If one thing appears certain in this period of uncertainty, it is that Mr Brown's days are numbered. I have to admit that I have a grudging admiration for the Supreme Leader - his resilience is nothing short of phenomenal. He had to live in Blair’s shadow for thirteen long years, he has faced down a number of coup attempts from his own party, and has suffered a sustained character assassination from the right wing press which most of us mere mortals would have found difficult to survive. By the end of the campaign it was beginning to show on his time wearied face. But the die is cast and the daggers are poised, Mr Brown can fall on his sword or he will be decapitated. For the good of his party and the good of the country and for his own good, he must go.

Mr Brown and Mr Darling will be much better treated by historians than by us, because of the vital job they did stopping this country from folding during the banking crisis, which nearly caused the Western financial system to collapse and which certainly wasn’t Labour's fault. Britain plc came within a hair’s breadth of going bust, something a great many still do not seem to fully grasp and something which we will still be paying for perhaps two decades from now. Our bile should be directed at the bankers who bet the house and lost, taking us down with them and who are now dictating demands for cuts in public services for those of us who bailed them out. Our politics however dictated that Brown and Labour had to take the flak. It is a repeating feature of our history that the British public may be thankful for your services, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they will vote for you come polling day. Churchill was beloved by the nation after the war, but he was still swept away by a Labour landslide. Mr Brown was by no stretch of the imagination Churchill and he was most defiantly not beloved, however he will be shown to be the longest serving and most successful Chancellor in our long history.

The election has delivered the hung parliament that we were vociferously warned about by Ken Clarke and the poisonous right wing press – and so far the sky hasn’t fallen in. Welcome to ‘grown up politics’ everyone, where a fraction of the population aren’t able to exercise a five year tyranny over the rest of us. It is worth noting that Britain and the Vatican City are the only states in Europe to not have a proportional system, so one assumes the rest of Europe are watching the media whirlwind here with mild amusement – or they would be if Greece wasn’t weighing so heavily on their minds.

The Lib-Dem bubble was blown by our old nemesis, First Past the Post and when it came to it, the charge of ‘vote Clegg get Brown’ from the Tories and ‘vote Clegg get Cameron’ from Labour, coupled with anti-Tory tactical voting made liars of the opinion pollsters. We increased our share of the vote and those sneering from the Labour ranks should note they got just six percent more than us, or two million more votes from an electorate of forty five million. The Conservatives with two million more than Labour, or four million more than us, do not under any definition have a mandate from the nation.

I have deep, deep misgivings about any suggestion of a coalition with the Tories. I have been impressed by the conciliatory nature of their leadership’s rhetoric since the negotiations, but the vile hot air blowing from the party’s right wing mean that we would get bugger all from Cameron et al, other than sharing the blame for the inevitable savage cuts and punitive tax rises that have to come. I do not think cabinet jobs are in anyway worth the cost without a cast iron guarantee for a Single Transferable Vote PR system – something Cameron cannot deliver. As for a ‘rainbow coalition’, as much as I would like to see it ideologically and as Labour would give us whatever we wanted, it doesn’t seem likely and it would not go down well with the nation. The charge of a stitch up would be difficult to defend.

There is a growing movement for electoral reform, a so called 'purple revolution' which possibly before too long could force this issue out of the politicians’ hands – it has outgrown being simply the ‘third’ party’s concern, there is deep anger and resentment bubbling beneath the surface. The current system is indefensibly corrupt. More people didn’t bother to vote than those who voted Tory. Those of us not voting for red or blue account for 35% of the electorate and we got 85 seats. The Tories got 36% and were entitled to 307 seats, Labour with 29% are somehow allowed 258.

The current system is a Victorian relic which only works in a two party state, something Britain hasn’t been for thirty years. I believe that the whole of our politics needs to be restructured and that it would be beneficial for those trapped in the charade ‘parties’ of Labour and the Conservatives, which are in reality coalitions of competing ideologies. The lurches from left to right lead to instability, each gleefully tearing up the others legislation as soon as the pendulum swings. Society is more complex than this false system and everyone has the right to have their voice heard in a democracy. The real world is one based on compromise, where people have different opinions and consensuses are built. A system where our politicians seem to behave like children is not in the national interest. It is time for Britain to enter the 21st century.

Here's John Cleese explaining PR from a 1987 Aliance broadcast.


The British establishment should be warned, if it thinks that stealing 35% of the electorate’s representation is permissible and that they will keep getting away with it forever, then they are very much mistaken. We will not go away, we will not give up. We demand a fair voting system. Nick Clegg should also be warned, ‘getting into bed’ with the Tories whilst failing to deliver a fair voting system would not be easily forgiven either.

If you would like a fair voting system please sign the petition here.

Liberal principals

Reading the newspapers this week, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Liberal Democrats were a collection of unprincipled opportunists, or a gang of miscreants who happened onto the political stage last month, to scupper the old parties ‘battle of ideas.’ This has come from hacks on both sides of British politics and ignores a number of facts which are worth mentioning.

In the last general election the Lib-Dems got over a fifth of the vote. They have increased their share of the vote in every general election since 1997 and polling has consistently shown that there is a significant number of people, who given the opportunity of Lib-Dem success, say they would support them. So they have been a growing presence on the political landscape; albeit one hampered by a corrupt voting system, ignored largely by the press, and patronised by Labour and the Tories.

As for the charge of not having an ideology; it’s a bit rich coming from Labour commentators. If ‘new’ Labour has an ideology, it is a particularly muddled and contradictory one. The Conservatives represent what they have always held dear; featherbedding the wealthy, inwardly looking, with fear, loathing and contempt of the poor. ‘People in glass houses’ maybe springs to mind?

The press are clearly worried about this election and it would seem that its influence may be on the wane. We have changed a great deal in the last ten years and the establishment hasn’t kept pace with either technology or the zeitgeist. It doesn’t like what it sees, and it is terrified the old way of doing things may be at an end. We will see a concerted effort to scare the voters back into line next week and the headlines will be interesting on May 6th should the polls remain as they are; who knows whether they will succeed.

As for what the Lib-Dems believe in, I cannot put it any more succinctly than the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution (below). Read it, and then tell me that they do not stand for anything, that they don’t believe in anything and that they have no ideological beliefs. It sounds pretty good to me.

Preamble to the Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution:


“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.


We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms.


Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world's peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources.


We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable.


We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary. We will promote scientific research and innovation and will harness technological change to human advantage.


We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.


Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles. We will contribute to the process of peace and disarmament, the elimination of world poverty and the collective safeguarding of democracy by playing a full and constructive role in international organisations which share similar aims and objectives.


These are the conditions of liberty and social justice which it is the responsibility of each citizen and the duty of the state to protect and enlarge. The Liberal Democrats consist of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.”

A very British revolution?

I’m a member of the Liberal-Democrats, my football team is Newcastle United and I’m a fan of Worcester Warriors in the rugby. I can speak with some authority on false dawns, raised expectations and ultimate disappointments; although on the flip-side it has also taught me to enjoy the good times along the way.

The second leaders’ debate seems to suggest that the increase in the Lib-Dem poll position would appear to have traction, leaving us in second place with Labour just behind and the Tories slightly ahead. But whether that will transfer into votes and how this national trend will play out locally, with all the vagaries of the ‘First Past the Post’ system appears to be quite unfathomable. It has at least been refreshing to see the political map shifted and the conservative press have a collective nervous breakdown.

Labour and the Tories are both clearly surprised and unsettled by the yellow surge, which begs the question why? Was it arrogance, a sense of entitlement or were they just hoping two party politics would always remain, even though we’ve had three party politics for thirty years? The position the old guard find themselves in, is not in itself merely an infatuation with Clegg –a honeymoon which the voters have foolishly foisted upon them caused by the leader’s debates. We may be witnessing something entirely different, a revolution in the grand old traditions of all British revolutions since our bloody civil war – simmering and gradual and bloodless ones being led by improbable characters.

There are many parallels in the 2010 election with the one in 1924 – Britain’s last gentle revolution - Lloyd George had destroyed the Liberal party seeking his own personal power at any cost, there was an amicable toff trying to recast the Tory party from a ‘nasty’ image which was still haunting it and a wily operator casting himself as outsider against ‘the two old parties’ and presenting himself as ‘real’ change. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I’ve spent much of the last decade wondering what the point of Labour is (and to a lesser extent the Conservatives), in the 21st century. The Labour Party was a rational expression of the socialism that the then large and recently emancipated working classes justifiably demanded. They wanted reform more quickly and radically than the Liberals of the middle classes were offering, and by the 1924 general election they overtook the Liberals to become the dominant progressive force in British politics. The Liberal agenda of individual freedom was swallowed by ideas of collectivism, but have we not now come full circle?

Now that old the working class is now largely part of the middle there seems to not be so much desire for socialism anymore - social democracy maybe, but not socialism. This was in my opinion what accounted for the 1983 Alliance splitting the progressive vote causing Labour to have to redefine itself, and if the Falkland’s war hadn’t luckily changed the game for Thatcher, could have ended in a very different result.

The ‘new’ Labour rebrand promised so much, but I think history will remember it harshly for being nothing but a cynical mirage. Blair and Brown built a government which seems to have had only one driving ideological principle – namely to win power and then to cling to it at any cost. They shamelessly bought favour from the right wing press, and whilst promising change to liberal voters, their leadership leapt straight over their heads to the left wing of the Conservative party. They told their core vote to shut up, for they had ended Labour’s time in the wilderness, threw a few bribes to floating voters at elections and failed to deliver much in the way of the progressive policies that the British liberal majority clamours for.

The Conservatives – despite their laughable change rhetoric – are exactly the same old Tories they always have been and always will be. They are there for the wealthy, the traditional, the little Englander, the xenophobic and big business, dreaming dreams of non-existent golden yesteryears; in fact all that has changed is that Labour have become unpopular, so they have assumed that means power is theirs to claim again.

Whether the public really want a Liberal-Democratic government is questionable. What, however is crystal clear, is that over a third of the electorate are indicating that they don’t want either a Conservative or a Labour government. They want the Lib-Dems to be there when the next government are discussing cuts, or taxes, and most importantly on political reform – looking over their shoulders and interjecting on the public’s behalf. The First Past the Post system has been shown to be exactly what those of us outside of the duopoly have said it was for decades. It is undemocratic, unrepresentative, corrupt, and delivers this country five year tyrannies that only a fraction of the electorate have voted for. No British government has actually had a mandate since Atlee in 1945.

There needs to be huge and sweeping changes to our system of government. We need to have a stronger and fully elected second chamber. That there are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords is frankly disgusting. That our constitution is so vague and malleable, combined with a corrupt voting system which means that we live in only a notional democracy is utterly unacceptable. In fact we would not be able to join the EU if applying today, as we would fail its democracy criteria. Hooray I hear the right-wingers shout – but even they would have to admit that this is a sorry state of affairs that cannot continue indefinitely?

I can understand that the Conservatives and Labour (the consequence seemingly has only slowly dawned on Labour this week) want to protect this corrupt system, for strong third parties and proportional voting systems mean an end to them forming elected dictatorships. I passionately believe that a plurality of parties is far more democratic, if over half the electorate vote for a coalition, then it has a real mandate. We could work together, cooperating to get things done and the vested interests would have less influence in our governance. People could go and vote for what they believe in, not for what they dislike least.

A proportional system would ultimately result in a Labour split along the lines of the SDP and old Labour traditionalists. The Conservatives would split along their European divisions and would see the Greens entering parliament. It may well perversely split the Lib-Dems as well. We would see much higher turn out when every vote counts and everyone can potentially make a difference. If nothing else can be learnt from this election, let it be this: when people can see that they have a voice, they become engaged with the political process.

Surely even the most partisan and biased Tory or Labour supporter can see that the time for reform has come? Whether we get that reform this year or not – it will come sooner rather than later – the great British public always get their way in the end.

A week in politics

For a lifelong liberal, of both the small and capital L variety, the last week has been a very surprising one, to say the least. We all had thought that the long anticipated leader’s debate (sorry Scotland – Prime Minister’s Debate) would give us a bit of a bounce in the polls; but a ten point poll bounce, actually being in a poll lead for a while and ‘Cleggmania’ would be an utterly incredulous prediction. Yet here we are.


So it was with that on my mind last night, as I went to the Worcester News election debate. It was as entertaining (well for an anorak like me anyway) as it was un-informing; it essentially boils down to the fact that the three main party candidates are fairly bland and middling politicians.

The incumbent, Mike Foster, in the red corner seemed to be in a surprisingly redolent and conciliatory frame of mind; in answer to a question about what he’d say to enter the Pearly Gates, said that he wanted the people of Worcester to “remember him as putting their interests first” – not the “five more years!” one may have expected given the polls. He put in some fiery defences of New Labour’s policies and eloquently highlighted the inequity of some of the Tory’s proposals; he was certainly the most statesmanlike of those on show and deep down there somewhere, beats the heart of a social democrat.

The main contender, Robin ‘jobs tax’ Walker, fighting in the blue corner, was like the invisible man. He was there allright, his was the only head I could actually see through the crowded room; he just seemed to disappear like the vanishing point on a hazy, long and lonely road. In the opening exchanges we heard last week’s Tory mantra of “jobs’ tax”; I’m sorry – but yawn. Nearly every tax is a tax on jobs, what they really mean is that National Insurance is a tax on businesses, but it is framed in the way it is assumedly because “a-bit-of-a-tax-on-you, but-a-far-larger- tax-on-your-boss” probably didn’t play so well in the focus groups. It’s not a great tax rise, but when viewed against the ‘age of austerity’ the Tories promised us a few months ago, seems unavoidable. He shoe-horned the Tory catch phrase into a few more of his answers before (to my mind, in any case) seemingly disappearing from the debate. He was simply a well groomed and no doubt perfectly capable Tory, who’s keeping his head down, assuming that Labour discontent and apathy will see him and not Mike Foster returned to Westminster.

Jackie Alderson, who was representing the Lib-Dems did okay, but if you are standing for a political party, don’t refer to them as “they” all night long. Surely when you get to the point where you are a candidate, you can use “us” as your choice of pronoun? To be fair, Jackie is contesting a Labour/Tory marginal which she isn’t particularly likely to win, was selected without much time to prepare and she is working on a shoestring budget compared to the other two. She incidentally got the loudest cheer of the night when outlining the proposed abolition of tuition fees over six years – it would seem the policy’s dilution is still preferable when compared to those on offer from the other two parties.

Perhaps more enlightening than last night’s debate was seeing the full force of the Conservative attack press unleashed on Nick Clegg this morning, lined up like tin soldiers patrolling on the petrol station forecourt. If you want to see just how rattled the Conservatives and their establishment are by this election campaign, then today’s headlines are more telling than their words could ever convey. If they had followed one line of attack then it may have popped the bubble that is clearly troubling them. However when viewed next to each other they took on a slightly comical appearance; it was just a little too visceral, as cynical as it was predictable and as crass as it was inevitable. It is the wounded war cry of vested interests. The headlines will no doubt cheer up a few Conservative voters but I suspect they will not have as much effect on those who have flown to Clegg’s banner as these papers may think.

What will happen next in this general election is anyone’s bet. Much will depend on tonight’s TV debate and Clegg’s performance. He has taken advantage once, showing when he is able to talk to the nation without the lens of a partisan press filtering him out, (a former editor of the Sun admitted that it was the paper’s policy to deliberately ignore the Lib-Dems), and without Labour, Tory and SNP MP’s boorishly heckling him in the chamber, that he can connect with the British public. Whatever happens now, at least Cameron will have to earn them, if he still wants those keys to No 10 and that looks far less likely than any point since 2007.

And for the progressives out there; the prospect of a really fair and democratic nation seems at least more plausible than it has done in a very long time indeed.

The Door (ITV1 Friday 2 April)

Last night I watched the first of a two part celeb-challenge fest, imaginably titled ‘The Door’ (ITV1). Hosted by Chris Tarrant and the ever present Amanda Holden, the viewer is subjected to a rag-bag bunch of formerly and marginally famous individuals travelling through doors – hence the title – where they must crawl through slime, snakes, rats, rubbish, water and yet more slime, in order to tackle the sort of cranial tasks that wouldn’t usually trouble a Barbary ape.


This show is a mutated hybrid of The Crystal Maze, It’s a Knockout and Noel’s House Party, but with any of their respective charms removed; although I’d guess the programme makers probably pitched it to ITV as ‘I’m a Celebrity meets a Big Brother task.’  Perhaps a more accurate title would be 'I'm a Celebrity on the Cheap' as many of the components are lifted directly from ITV's diminishing ratings winner and placed on a cheap set, with cheap celebrities and no airline tickets.  The only contestant I recognised was Dean Gaffney, whose sole work these days is in the jaw droopingly abysmal Daz adverts. There was also, I was informed by my friend’s wife, a former Boyzone member, some guy off children’s ITV, some girl from the Saturdays, some girl off Eastenders and some woman off Corrie. We were as ever expected to believe that this was all for charity. However as we all well know, these folks aren’t in it for their local hospice, this is a last ditch attempt to resurrect their piss poor careers.

The usual trick with these shows is to have a hate figure, someone we all would like to see covered in revolting gunk and thereby giving the viewer some form of cathartic pleasure, think Jordan or John Fashanu on I’m a Celebrity. However with these contestants the viewer is left only with apathy, as they run around like headless chickens, groping through the various types of goo and shrieking at the menagerie of creepy-crawlies and rodents. The only person on this show who I’d have liked to see terrorised was the expressionless Amanda Holden. I am always left at a loss as to why Ms Holden gets so much TV work (I could hazard a cynical guess though), she is such a talentless presenter, who as time goes by seems to be turning into a ventriloquist’s dummy – I jest not, her face seems to have become set in stone. It was far more entertaining to imagine Chris Tarrant was throwing his voice whenever she spoke.

The majority of these contestants seem to be amiably inept, the girl off Eastenders amazingly even managed to have a panic attack and be pulled from the task. It also seems clear that the males seem to be taking this show much more seriously than the women – perhaps inadvertently the programme makers have created a sociological experiment highlighting gender differentials.  The guy from Boyzone (Keith Duffy) is perhaps the most entertaining of the participants, as he clearly wants to win this show ever so much. He looks as pumped up as a soldier being sent ‘over the top’ as he bounds into the challenges. It brings to mind Tim Robbins’ character in ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ as he stoically crawls a mile through shit towards his freedom – this guy would crawl for any distance through any effluence in order to garner the limited accolades of victory in The Door.

That is perhaps the true metaphor of shows like this. They teach us the real value of low-level celebrity and modern society in general. You must crawl on your hands and knees through crap and vermin in order to tackle an arbitrary and meaningless set of tasks, stabbing your friends in the back along the way to secure a Pyrrhic victory. And your prize should you succeed is a bit part in a washing powder advert. It is sad that 21st century television seems utterly bereft of any originality. We instead have to watch x meets y, and then chuck in some ‘celebrities’ of breath taking marginality, with which to hold the mesmerised audiences’ attention. On reflection, I don’t think I’ll bother to watch part two of this terrible show.

Drugs: the missuse of law

So ‘the war drugs’ opened up a new front last week with the popular press turning its attention to legal highs and the strangely named meow-meow, following the sad deaths of two young men from Scunthorpe. Again the tabloids are chasing controversy with the Sun lambasting the government for having not banned the “lethal” substance and the Mail with its tales of teachers having to return it to school children in their classes – for it is legal you see. This seem s a little improbable, I doubt children are allowed to take paint thinners or bleach, or any other number of ‘legal’ yet dangerous substances to school, but the Mail rarely lets reality ever effect the construction of a good story. It has also yet to be proven that meow, or mephedrone as it is properly called, actually caused these deaths until the post-mortem of the two young men have been concluded. In so far as I have been able to research, there have been a handful of suspected deaths in Scandinavia and one confirmed fatality in the UK; by this rational the Sun would have to describe peanuts as the “lethal” bar snack.



The press and politicians have called for their only tool in tackling the misuse of drugs – a ban. This is symptomatic of the misguided war on drugs successive governments have been fighting for three decades now, at immense cost with little to no success. Prohibition has never worked; if someone has decided to take a potentially harmful drug for recreational purposes then I suspect the draconian laws of their elders aren’t going to change their minds. They are usually rebelling against the rules of their parents or authority and the illegality of it only serves to give it greater appeal. Banning Meow will not reduce the number of people taking it, this will only serve to put another substance into the unscrupulous hands of criminals, who will cut it with worming tablets to increase their profits, will force young and otherwise law abiding citizens to mix with the underworld and criminalise them in the process. The only winners in our enlightened war on drugs are the criminal gangs who control the black market, which is in many cases far more dangerous than the drugs we are seeking to control.


If we take heroin as a case study then we can see the futile and harmful prohibition of the war on drugs. Heroin was used as a field medicine during the First World War and a consequence of this was that following Armistice Day there were relatively large numbers of veterans who had become addicted, many for the rest of their lives. The medical handbooks and studies of these veterans from the 1920s tell us that heroin has no significant side effects.  Nausea and constipation are cited as the problematic harm caused; heroin was even injected into premature babies during this period with no adverse reactions recorded. For essentially political reasons, following a highly publicised case of a doctor selling heroin, it was made illegal in Britain. Following this change in the law, the supply of the drug is controlled by the dealers who mix it with any number of severely toxic and dangerous substances, which apart from their inherent dangers results in the purity of the heroin varying from 20 to 90%, leading to accidental lethal overdoses.


Portugal in 2001 changed their drugs laws, decriminalising the possession of street drugs, instead of chucking users into their criminal justice system they offered training and rehabilitation; dealers and traffickers are still jailed as before. The result of this was a reduction of street drug deaths from 400 per year in 2000 to 290 by 2005 and a reduction in HIV infections from 1,400 to about 400 over the same period.


So we have a choice, we can continue with our present system of prohibition; a system that helps no one except the criminals, causes many of the street drug deaths, does not serve our society, but a system that allows politicians to pretend that they're tough, with our newspapers who whip up fear with lies or disinformation and conveniently for them, sells their papers to a gullible public. On the other hand we could adopt a sensible and rational system like Portugal where society tries to help those trapped by drug use. Personally I’d go a step further than Portugal and take the supply of drugs into the control of the state, as in Holland, and thereby end the destructive black market once and for all.


Don’t misunderstand me, I am not advocating drug use and believe they can in some circumstances cause a great deal of harm; however I believe that if an individual knows the risks of taking drugs, but still chooses to, then that is their right so long as they cause no harm to anyone else. I don’t see why we can’t have a system that actually reduces crime and makes people much safer than they are now, rather than this shameful drug policy created by the ignorant and self-interested supported by unthinking sheep?

Argentina's Folly.

Sequels have always been popular in Hollywood, as well as a recurring feature of modern warfare, but despite Argentina’s growing rhetoric, I believe the prospect of a Falkland’s War 2 is highly unlikely.

Argentina has greedily eyed the windswept islands since their independence from the Spanish Empire early in the Nineteenth century. After Britain recaptured the Falklands in order to guard the trade route around Cape Horn, the Argentines have laid claim to them and following their attempt to take them by force in 1982 ended with a humiliating defeat, we may have been forgiven for thinking that was the end of the matter; however a ruinous Argentine economy, a despised President and the little matter of a potential 60 billion barrels of oil have reignited this dispute.


Cristina Kirchner is the hugely inept Argentine premier who was swept to power in a landslide in 2007, and who is now deeply unpopular after overseeing the fragile recovery from the 2001 economic crisis stall. It seems to be that the standard response when right wing Argentine governments are in trouble is to whip up nationalist sentiment by raising the issue of Malvinas sovereignty again. Argentina has gathered support from fellow South American leaders, notably Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Lula da Silva of Brazil, the two old lefties, who never cease to rake up any imagery of colonialism as a matter of personal expediency. Sadly from Argentina’s point of view, all the diplomatic hot air in the world will never see the Falklands in their hands; on this matter the UK government will ignore the South Americans, the United Nations, and anyone else that Kirchner whines to for that matter.


‘Queen Cristina’ is not as stupid as she may appear though; she has been quick to rule out a military option - so why is she so keen to try diplomacy?  In 1982 the UK was caught with its trousers down over the Falklands, there was a negligible military presence and the Foreign Office did not anticipate what was coming. In the end, the war was a close run thing but it certainly would not be if fought today. The UK has a garrison of a thousand troops permanently based on the islands; the Mount Pleasant Air Base and a Falklands emergency response plan means that a British defense would take hours, not weeks as in 82. Make no mistake, a British government of either political persuasion would respond immediately with overwhelming military might. The vulnerability of the Eighties has been removed and a Falklands War 2 would lead to a resounding victory for the UK and a far more embarrassing defeat for the Argentines than the last time around.


Argentina’s claim to the Falklands can be charitably called tenuous. The islands history is one of imperial squabbling between Britain, France and Spain, none has any moral high ground in the matter; however as they were uninhabited islands the simple logic of dispelling a colonial power does not wash. It is uncertain who was the first to discover the Falkland Islands, they appear on sixteenth century Spanish and English maps, but it is widely believed to be a Dutch explorer who first sighted them; Britain and Spain both have claims from this time. Historically they have only ever been part of Argentina for five brief years and Spain for the thirty-five years previous to that, during an interlude in which Britain left the islands to save money to fight the American Revolutionary War and the British navy retook them in 1833. So the islands have been inhabited by Britons for nearly two hundred, out of two hundred and forty six years since European inhabitation.


The population of the Falkland Islands are British citizens, they have quite clearly expressed their desire to remain so and in the principal of self determination they have the right to remain so. If the Falkland Island government wishes to develop their natural resources, then that also is their right and has nothing whatsoever to do with any other state, the UN and it is none of Argentina’s business. Even if no oil had been discovered there, Britain would be right to defend this small outpost of our nation as fiercely as we would the Isles of Scilly or the Channel Islands, these British citizens have the right to exist without the constant threats from the banana republic on their door step.

European Coalescence

Europe is a contentious issue in Britain. In the papers it is seldom reported, unless there is a negative or euro-sceptical angle to be made – who knows who the Danish premiere is, or which party leads France? You won’t find the answer in the Sun or Mail - But we are all told Europe is something to be feared, if we were to discern Britain’s geographical position from the media, we would have to conclude we were anchored somewhere off the coast of Maine; not twenty miles away from France.



There seems to be a contradiction in the euro-sceptical argument. They are opposed to closer integration between the UK and our European neighbours, for they argue that it is a threat to British sovereignty; yet these are the same people who clamour for Britain to take the lead in foreign affairs, to exert ‘influence’ with an expectation of a seat at ‘The Big Table’. The fact that the public still seem to expect the UK to have this role is baffling. The Empire ended nearly seventy years ago now, and had been in sharp decline in the thirty years preceding that. Our global position has been maintained since the Second World War, primarily by developing an independent nuclear weapons program in the Fifties, the reason why we are part of the UN Security Council and secondly that the world was divided between just two superpowers after the war which meant that there was space at ‘The Big Table’ and as America’s most sycophantic ally, we were humoured. To quote Bob Dylan however, “the times they are a changing”.


There is a new world order slowly emerging as this century takes shape, with new superpowers consisting of China, India and potentially Brazil; the US is by no means guaranteed to be in this club by the end of the century. States like Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are of little geo-political consequence, we are both small and insignificant despite what our pride would like us to believe. Barack Obama realises that the next century will be defined by pan-Pacific treaties; not North Atlantic ones. He wouldn’t meet the Europeans at Copenhagen; instead he bypassed us, forming a policy with India, China and South Africa. Europe is at a pivotal point in its ancient history, for the first time since the Dark Ages we could become a global back water; rather than making and defining history, we will instead become history.


There is a solution to this, a Federal Europe – euro-sceptics may now vent their spleens.


In order to explore this, we must first face a couple of home truths; firstly Britain is not and never again will be a superpower; secondly the ‘Special Relationship’ is only special to the British and politically expedient to certain US presidents; thirdly a state is only a matter of representation, not identity. The only way Europeans can influence this new order is if the British, French and Germans stop their teary eyed reminiscences for the Nineteenth century, grow up and face the Twenty-first century together. The tinkering at the edges of the EU needs to end, it must be reformed radically and fundamentally to achieve this; I realise this difficult to implement and unpalatable to conservatives and xenophobes alike, however the consequences of not doing this are enormous and should at least be discussed in an open manner within our societies.

I should point out that I am far from happy with how the EU is currently constituted. There are four positions now that can be viewed as the head; EU council president (Von Rumpoy); council president; the rotating residual president (currently Spain) and finally speaker of the European parliament. Insanity is sure to ensue. The commission must be abolished, to be replaced by a senate; the parliament must be given far greater power; the executive must be directly elected. There must be an end to the turf wars between Britain, France and Germany; the behind closed door decisions made in smoke filled rooms must be stopped. The EU has to be open, democratic and fully accountable to all Europeans. A federal law and judiciary must be established. This is all achievable, let’s build a new republic based on the highest ideals of democracy and fairness, and recognise that we have far more in common than we have differences. United we stand, divided we fall etc, etc.


Whenever I have challenged anyone of a euro-sceptical bent to be specific about their disdain for the EU, they will mutter darkly about the attack on the Pound, or bureaucrats imposing silly rules on the shape of fruit, or if they are older, about having to use the accursed metric system. Naturally these are all such tremendously important issues; however the more honest amongst them will tell you that ‘they aint going to be ruled by no Frogs or no Krauts’. So can this aspect of opposition ever be overcome? I believe it could be; if we look at US history then there are parallels with Europe today. The thirteen founding states were largely suspicious of one another and made sure they each retained a large degree of autonomy from the federal government. America seems to have muddled along quite successfully in the intervening two hundred and forty years. For this to happen though, political capital from our governments would have to be expended and the media would have to change its outlook in Britain; neither of which seems probable today.


What most people don’t seem to realise is that in Britain we are governed by self serving elites, it is unlikely that you will ever be in a position of power or influence unless you have very wealthy parents, went to a private school, and followed up with a stint at Ox-bridge. Nearly all government decisions are London centric and usually self serving, benefiting the elites who placed them in power in the first place. In fact, if we view many European countries, they look after their populations far better than we are treated here in Britain. This is the heart of anti-EU sentiment within the governing classes and the press barons; they don’t want Britain to be dissolved into a European union as they might lose their influence – no longer able to exert their God given right play with Albion as though it was their own private little toy.


It seems to me that we have three potential paths ahead of us. If we are determined that we should remain as a sovereign British state, so be it; however we must also accept the consequences of that. We will become a second world nation, another Sweden or Poland, which isn’t such a terrible thing. We will have to stop poking our nose into the affairs of the superpowers, accept our influence is marginal and roll with the punches that are thrown our way. Britain will, without a shadow of doubt, lose its place on the Security Council. India and Brazil have far more right to be there than the UK or France. We will have created the modern world, only to be drowned by its consequences. Another option is to effectively become the Fifty-first state, to leave the EU and like the weak child on the playground, clinging to the big boy’s coat tails hoping to absorb some of his power and respect. Or we can put aside our few petty differences, forge a United Europe, and set aside the xenophobic and self-interested to put forward a European voice on the world stage.


Let us at the very least have a robust, thorough and most importantly honest debate about Britain’s and Europe’s future.


In case you were wondering: France is ruled by the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a centre right party and Denmark’s prime minister is Lars Løkke Rasmussen from the Liberal party.

Criminal Injustice

Election campaigns tend to be an opportunity for our political representatives to posture themselves as the toughest on crime – who can forget Blair’s 1997 pledge of “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. In practice New Labour were neither, but at least they started with lofty aspirations to attack the root of criminality; however this soon descended to “zero tolerance” when David Blunkett cherry picked a report on crime prevention from New York and applied one narrow aspect of it, without adopting the vast majority of the techniques used by the New Yorkers. This ‘zero tolerance’ approach was cheer led from the sidelines by the conservative press, which is to say, in essence all the press; a policy which flew the face of decades of research which have shown this approach has never worked.

Enter David Cameron into the fray, with a pledge to stop the government's early release scheme. This rash promise has led to the Conservatives proposing the reintroduction of prison ships, which when last used were described by the then Chief Inspector of Prisons as unfit for purpose. Cameron has condemned the government's early release scheme, citing that since Gordon Brown’s premiership 75,000 prisoners have been released early, with 1,500 offences being committed by inmates on early release. So, that is a massive 2%; clearly this is a political decision attacking the policy in general, to whip up support from the True Blues and the media.


The question our politicians should be seeking an answer to is; why are British prisons so full that we have to release prisoners early in the first place?


Britain has the largest prison population in Europe. About 70% of the detainees have two or more diagnosed mental disorders; about 60% have a reading age of less than that of a six year old and conservative estimates show at least a quarter of inmates are heroin addicts. New Labour has been obsessed during its tenure to criminalise British society, creating over 3,000 new offences with about half warranting a custodial sentence. When analysed many seem incredibly minor, with the Home Office’s zeal for sending people to jail for bad driving, petty crimes such as shop lifting, or as part of the ill conceived war on drugs.


The simple truth is that tens of thousands of prisoners in British jails just simply shouldn’t be there; in the Eighties the Conservative's inspired policy of ‘care’ in the community dumped thousands of severely mentally ill patients in small unsecured units, although in reality on the streets. Many now find themselves part of the prison population. Drug addicts should be rehabilitated, as this has been shown repeatedly, over and over again by countless studies to reduce crime and re-offending rates; New Labour’s response was to reduce the number of treatment centres in the UK. The prisons are too full to have effective education programmes to equip inmates with the skills necessary to be a worthwhile participant in society and then everyone throws their hands up in the air when the latest re-offender figures are released as though it is a mystery; then our intrepid political masters suggest being tougher or buying a couple of boats to solve the problem.


In British society an unvirtuous circle has evolved between politicians, the media and public opinion; which has taken us down a path where the best interests of our society are seldom served. It starts with a populist conservative sentiment based on ignorance and prejudice; the right-wing media then feeds on this sentiment, criticising the politicians for not immediately bowing down to it in the most reactionary way possible; the weak politicians then make policies to get applause from the press, and so we descend. Once when journalism was about reporting the truth, and politicians made their decisions based upon facts, public opinion could be changed and society improved. Capital punishment was abolished in the face of overwhelming public opposition, such a thing could not happen today, due to the debasement of our politics and press; maybe the Enlightenment has finally ended?


If petty criminals, the addicted and the insane were taken out of the prisons then those convicted of serious crimes could receive the punishments that they deserve and serve sentences that reflect the harm they have caused. The vast sums of money saved could be used to fund secure hospitals where the mentally ill could receive suitable treatment and drug rehabilitation centres could be built to help the helplessly addicted, as well as developing effective prevention programmes.


Our current justice system is a thing of deep collective shame, an indictment on our society where we lock up the deranged, the weak, and the feeble and offer them no realistic chance to redeem themselves after our retribution. We all feel good because justice has been seen to be done, we have reinforced our prejudiced opinion and the fact is we have not made society one jot safer.